Absent the war, there isn’t much doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein and his sons would have been in control of Iraq for at least 2-3 more decades.

So I’d say some good has already come. Though I’ll admit at this particular time (3.5 years later) conditions are probably worse than they would have been with Saddam and his sons in power.

As I noted in my first comment, “We may all want solid policy arguments, but we should have no illusions that they necessarily will either compel or serve as the foundation for political decisions. Rather we should be aware of the other factors affecting policy, such as short time horizons of politicians, differences in interests between citizens and politicians, opportunities for rent-seeking …”

The invasion and occupation of Iraq have cost us over $500 billion so far, and the meter is running at the rate of $150 million to day. Whatever one’s calculation of benefits to the US, clearly the costs far outweigh the benefits (and analysts such as Nordhaus pointed out in advance that this was likely to be the case – http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/AAAS_War_Iraq_2.pdf).

But we should not forget that war advocates may have had private or partisan reasons behind their publicly stated ones. To mention a few: The money being spent on the war is not being dumped in a pile and burned (though it may as well, for the good it is doing us), but being spent on defense contracts with firms in which many of America’s elite have significant financial stakes. US oil and gas firms expected significant benefits from the privatization of the Iraq oil industry; even as civil war has prevented these benefits, the tremendous rise in world energy prices resulting from the war turbulence has vastly increased the profits of the oil firms. Thus, there has been no short-term downside to them from the war. Also, it is clear that Republicans perceived the war as a partisan strategy, and used it as such in the 2004 and 2006 elections. In addition, the Executive branch certainly also used the war on terror as a tool to wrest greater power and freedom of action from the Congress. Finally, given that politicians and administrative officials have relatively short-term time horizons, it should not be surprising that they may hastily commit the US to policies that may be long-term disasters – after all, do any of them personally bear the costs of the war?

We should also examine other so-called policy failures in this light. Better information does not lead inexorably to better decision-making; only a better decsion-making process does. That means better checks and balances.

Thanks for your comment. I do think that the war, if not lost, is a lost cause. Others may disagree. Like you I too am hopeful that some good may come yet.

Thanks.

I was not aware that we had lost the war in Iraq. When did we sign the surrender documents?

You may elect to believe that we have lost, but not everyone agrees with you. I’m still hopeful that some good will come out of the war yet.

Regards,

Bill

Sure,

Assign it a grade on its politics (A-/B+?)
Assign it a grade on its academics (C-?)
Assign it a grade on its politicization of science (?)

We can differ in opinion on whether it’s a net pass or fail.

My point was simply to observe that the report must be judged on several different levels; not merely the fairness of its assumptions, but its effectiveness in bringing the US into meaningful participation in global mitigation and adaptation policies.

The issues raised here so far may be on the least important level. As to the global political level, perhaps the report has been mooted by the recent US elections, but I suspect it will still be used as a lever, within the US, by others on the US and by the US on China and India.

Thanks for your response. But where did I forget that we are dealing with an unregulated commons?

And I’m aware of the political goals of the report, including Tol’s view of the politics. Stern was done with purpose. It may work. But its political efficacy doesn’t factor into my acceptance of his analysis.

Stern would fare better in the long-run if it had the acceptance rather than than criticism of Tol, Nordhaus and others. But perhaps stern wasn’t looking for their acceptance.

You wrote: “Doesn’t history tell us that perhaps dishonest and unprincipled means are the best way to achieve selfish ends?”

No! Absolutely not!

About the only endeavor where such tactics generally bring about the desired outcomes is war, where it is absolutely vital to be less than honest with the enemy and where principles can slow down an army more than a Russian winter! (If we fought WWII like we fight in Iraq, we would still be dealing with NAZI insurgents, while we held congressional hearings over someone putting Mein Kampf in a toilet!)

Outside of war, history tells us that the most successful societies are those with considerable individual liberty, tempered by a rule of law, divined from founding principles and overseeing a generally free market. Such societies are only successful as long as the majority of citizens abide by those rules, and punish those that don’t. These facts support my contention that noble ends (like a successful society) are achieved through honest means, even though everyone in that society is working for their own well-being (selfish ends).

More specifically, the 20th century is nothing but the history of the terrible consequences of those who adopted noble goals, but were dishonest about the threats to the goal and the proposed solutions to achieve it. Perhaps George Bush and WMDs is an example that you would relate to. For me, the inappropriate banning of DDT is the most egregious example, resulting in more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (four other examples of my point)!

Less bloody examples include the war on poverty and improving education. Both are failing to achieve their desired ends because we refuse to honestly look at the problems, preferring to demonize political opponents instead. Considerable resources have been thrown at both with little success, sometimes even back-sliding, because we do not correctly identify that which prevents the goal from being achieved.

If our goal is to reduce the negative consequences and take advantage of the positive consequences of human induced climate change (the actual goal is almost never stated), then we must be honest about the problem as well as the solution. Exaggerating the threat and misapplying the blame will lead to bad policy that will not achieve the desired ends.

You say “Those who argue that the ends justify the means do so with the full belief that the means will bring about the desired ends. Sadly, history tells us that this almost never happens. If the ‘means’ are not honest and principled, there is little chance that the desired ‘ends’ will be achieved!”

I would say that this seems naive. Doesn’t history tell us that perhaps dishonest and unprincipled means are the best way to achieve selfish ends? One must always ask what ends are being achieved (and for whose benefit and at whose cost) when one is reaching conclusions about whether policy goals have been accomplished.

About the most one case say is that one should be on his toes when others use dishonest and unprincipled means, since that may indicate they have a selfish end in mind. And what selfish ends might the UK have in mind? I don’t know, but how about getting the US to join the international community, and to bring China and India along? The context of the report are the prisoners’ dilemma of the international game, and the rent-seeking occurring within each country.

Of course you are right that the issue is complex and so the international response cannot focus solely on CO2. The report does not undermine the braoder discussion.